Top-100 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 1

[The Macho King]

Orr was just three times top-10 in shorthanded goal scoring his whole career(4th, 6th, 4th) while Gretzky was 6th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st his first five NHL seasons.

Orr is not clearly better than Gretzky in terms of peak or prime (if you wanna ignore career length and awesome 10th and beyond seasons).

I would hazard a guess that it's just less likely that a Dman is going to score a SHG than a forward. Shorthanded points would be a better indicator.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Yes, just over 13. 5 per cent. And only four times since the middle of WWII.

Only when looking back, if you take the number from the season before Gretzky won his first hart it's 23%.

Modern Hart standards are clearly different than they used to be.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Wouldn't such an analysis be positionally biased as well as highly contextual based on coaching and usage rates of the other 4 skaters on the ice? As well based on league GPG and scoring rates?

If you're comparing ratios then no, it's not biased by league GPG and scoring rates. I have adjusted numbers but they give exactly the same results. Otherwise, I agree with you that every stat in hockey is contextual based on usage, teammates and opposition. If you think there's a good reason to think that Gretzky is underrated by this metric and is actually the more effective 5-on-5 player, I'm completely open to counterarguments.

Additionally you've taken a 7 year snapshot of both players. Which is 7/9 of Orr's actually relevant seasons and almost less than half of Gretzky's.

Sure. If you don't care about things like 7-year VsX, then that's fine, we rate players differently.

 

[VanIslander]

Pretty good for a d-man.

Yes, but look at the claim I marshalled that evidence against ("Orr... the best player in history in outscoring the opposition").

 

[ResilientBeast]

If you're comparing ratios then no, it's not biased by league GPG and scoring rates. I have adjusted numbers but they give exactly the same results. Otherwise, I agree with you that every stat in hockey is contextual based on usage, teammates and opposition. If you think there's a good reason to think that Gretzky is underrated by this metric and is actually the more effective 5-on-5 player, I'm completely open to counterarguments.



Sure. If you don't care about things like 7-year VsX, then that's fine, we rate players differently.

I'd need to see similar breakdowns for many famous D/F pairs in history before I could be convinced that trying to use that to justify Orr over Gretzky is viable.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

Orr was just three times top-10 in shorthanded goal scoring his whole career(4th, 6th, 4th) while Gretzky was 6th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st his first five NHL seasons.

Orr is not clearly better than Gretzky in terms of peak or prime (if you wanna ignore career length and awesome 10th and beyond seasons).

I said shorthanded points, not goals in my original post. If you're comparing point totals between a forward and a defenceman, then I agree that the defenceman is not going to look better. But here's how Orr ranked among NHL defencemen only in shorthanded scoring:

1967: T1st
1968: NR
1969 T2nd
1970 1st
1971 1st
1972 1st
1973 1st
1974 T1st
1975 T1st

Pretty tough to argue with that resume.

 

[VanIslander]

Why compare him to defensemen only in his era when you are arguing that he is the best player ever PERIOD (better than Gretzky) at outscoring the opposition, even on special teams?!!

 

[Canadiens1958]

And if we're going to discuss Gretzky not winning after "The Trade"

Can anyone explain why the Bruins were unable to win more than two cups in the late 60s early 70s?

I assume almost overlapping dynasties from the Habs played a role?

Outside Orr the Buins were a very weak skating team. Could not overcome the problem when facing skating teams over the length of a series.

 

[seventieslord]

Again, context. Context. Context.

I'm ballparking a little bit, but Orr manufactured his offense while playing defense as well (and by all reports did very good defensively). So, he was generating a massive amount of assists from the backend. You would expect a centre to get more assists, and Gretzky did. If you want to say Gretzky had a slight edge as a passer, that's fine. But I disagree that there was much of an edge at all. I also say that Gretzky's supporting cast was more adept at putting the puck in the net (yes, he was the reason they did it so often, so no disagreement there). But other than Esposito, I'd say that the rest of the Bruins were less talented offensively than the Oilers of the 80's or even the Kings of the early 90's. It was Orr that makes us even remember their names today.

I agree with this. People automatically saying things like "Gretzky is better than Orr offensively" simply because of point totals are focusing too much on stats and not enough on the context of their positions. Who was more dominant offensively, considering the confines of their positions? That's tough to answer, in my opinion. On an adjusted basis, Gretzky's two best seasons are 33% higher than Orr's in terms of point scoring. What's more impressive, scoring 170 (adjusted) as a center, or scoring 129 as a defenseman? Both achievements are unprecedented, but I think it's worth looking at just how beyond precedent both achievements are in order to make a fair judgement.

Points aren't scored in a vaccuum. You can't score a goal if you're busy doing something else. Again, this is why Lemieux and Gretzky are the best goal scorers of all-time - they scored over a goal per game while putting up even more assists than that. Similarly, Gretzky's point totals, raw or adjusted, shouldn't just be compared to Orr 1-to-1 so that one can say he was "better offensively" - we are capable of more nuance than that, aren't we?

Gretzky won tons outside of the dynasty, just not the Stanley Cup (eg., he was instrumental to winning the 1984, 1987 and 1991 Canada Cups)(also, after leaving Edmonton, a Hart trophy, three more Art Ross trophies and six more NHL 1st or 2nd team all star selections).

What Stanley Cups did Lemieux and Orr win outside of their two close together?

Heck, what Stanley Cups did Howe win outside of the four in the 1950-55 dynasty years?

This line of reasoning is immaterial to the Big 4. It will be relevant when Messier comes up, Red Kelly for sure, Sprague Cleghorn, maybe Hooley Smith.

You know, it's interesting, that as strong as these players were individually, they have a combined 12 Stanley Cups, won over a total span of just 16 seasons. It sure separates them from other players in this round, like Beliveau, Richard, Roy, and others who'll come up shortly, like Kelly, Morenz, Crosby, Plante, Shore, Lidstrom, and Messier, either in terms of volume of wins, the spans between them, or both.

I'm not sure it's ultimately important because it won't change a thing about who the top-4 is, almost certainly, but it's strange that these guys were only able to turn their immense talent into the ultimate prize for their teams for such a short time.

 

[Canadiens1958]

13 Times

Shore - 4
Orr - 3
Gardiner - 1
Goodfellow - 1
Siebert - 1
Anderson - 1
Pratt - 1
Pronger - 1

Goodfellow and Anderson were not strictly defencemen. So 11 times.

Only Orr 3 and Pronger in the Norris era.

 

[seventieslord]

Gretzky is above Orr because in my opinion there are 5 main categories worth considering, and I believe Gretzky is ahead in all of them (or at worst, tied in 1 of 5, and ahead in 4):

Playoffs
Peak
Prime
International Play
Career

Really, 5 main categories and international play is one of them?

I seriously still can't get over the fact that Hasek is not in the Top 10, but Bourque is. This is wrong on so many levels. The only thing Bourque has on Hasek is longevity as an elite player. Hasek has better peak, prime, and accomplishments. Just wrong.

Peak, yes. Prime, highly debatable. Best goalie over a seven-year span as opposed to best defenseman over a seven-year span.

Accomplishments? Are you sure about that?

 

[ResilientBeast]

I hope when we see the initial lists those who value peak above all have Hasek in their top 10s

 

[DannyGallivan]

Why compare him to defensemen only in his era when you are arguing that he is the best player ever PERIOD (better than Gretzky) at outscoring the opposition, even on special teams?!!

Outscoring is simply scoring differential. It doesn't matter as much how many goals Orr scored, it's goals scored vs goals allowed.

 

[DannyGallivan]

I hope when we see the initial lists those who value peak above all have Hasek in their top 10s

Well, Hasek was my top goalie... one overall space ahead of Roy.

That's another issue that has gotten me quite drunk thanks to the rules of this engagement... comparing goalies to skaters.

 

[Canadiens1958]

I haven't heard any arguments so far (maybe I missed some) for a high ranking of Harvey or Beliveau.

I need convincing that Beliveau is any better than all unlisted centers even (eg., Esposito).

Interestingly, cross-positionally... Beliveau over Roy? *shrug* I hadn't ever tried to compare those two so directly.

Letting the opening acts run their course.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I’m hoping the Lemieux delegation will join the party soon. Since it seems for the most part people are pretty locked in on their top 2.

I’d also be interested if someone has an argument for Howe being in the top 2

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Wayne dominated the league to a degree that has not been witnessed before or since. He shattered offensive records. He won Art Ross by 70-80 points. He lapped the field.

so this raises an interesting question for me: what was more inconceivable before it happened? orr or gretzky?

case for orr—

1969

breaks pierre pilote's single-season points record for a defenseman by 5. not groundbreaking until you consider that in the process he also helped esposito to a 126 point season. the previous record was 97. yes, the game was changing and scoring was increasing (hull, the previous co-record holder with 97, put up 107 that season; howe set a career high with 103), but the sheer volume of espo's 126, on top of his 19 point lead over hull and 23 point lead over howe, was astronomical.

1970

he follows that up by winning the art ross as a defenseman. that achievement will always speak for itself. he put up 120 points, which at the time was the second highest total ever. 21 point lead over the next highest scorer (espo), 34 point lead over #3 (mikita).

he beat the single-season assist record by 10 (espo), and was 20 over the next highest non-teammate (mikita).

so let me repeat: a defenseman. led the league in scoring. by 21 points. and had a 34 point lead over the next highest non-teammate. broke the single-season assist record. by 10. and was 20 higher than the next highest non-teammate.

1971

his team invented the 60 goal plateau, 70 goal plateau, 90 assist plateau, 100 assist plateau, 130 point plateau, 140 point plateau, and 150 point plateau.

phil esposito: 76 goals, beat the previous record by 18, nobody but himself could come within 15 goals of this number until bossy in 1979

bobby orr: 102 assists, beat the previous record (his own) by 15, in the next ten years nobody but himself could come within 12 of that number, until gretzky came along

orr: 139 points, a record that still stands

esposito: 152 points, shattered his own already unfathomable record of 126 points

no team had ever had two 50 goal scorers before (espo and bucyk); no team had ever had two 100 point scorers before and boston had four (espo, orr, bucyk, and hodge).

1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th place goal scorers
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place in assists
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th place in points


case for gretzky—

1980

co-leads the league in points as a teenage rookie, but leads the league with a slightly higher points/game ratio than dionne. one of the highest scoring individual seasons of all time, better than any lafleur season for example, good for #4 all-time behind only espo and orr.

8th highest assist total ever, behind only trottier and two guys named bobby.

important to remember that he was 18 years old through the first half of the season.

1981

breaks orr's assist record by 7, breaks espo's points record by 12. wins the art ross by 29 points. invents the 160 point plateau.

he turns 20 mid-way through the season.

but where are the goals, wayne?

1982

breaks espo's single-season goals record by 16, breaks his own assist record by 11, his own points record by 48. leads the league in goals by 28, assists by 27, points by 65. invents the 200 point plateau (and 170, 180, and 190 point plateaux, plus of course the 80 and 90 goal and 110 and 120 assist plateaux).

 

[Iceman]

Do I dare to wager that the people who had Hasek 1st had Roy closer to him than people had Hasek to Roy when placing Roy 1st. Heck, wouldn't surprise me if someone had Hasek like 4th or something among goalies but that's just a guessing game that might be better left for the next vote when Hasek and Roy might end up in the same group (hopefully!).

As far as Bourque goes, I had him 3rd among dmen so it's not out of this world strange for me to see Bourque here since 3 dmen made it. His all-star record is pretty much unparalleled among dmen and his consistency offensively is pretty darn solid. He scored less in the playoffs but had, as someone pointed out, better individual playoff success than what the first glimpse might say. Despite saying this, he will probably end up last among this group, unless someone can convince me of placing him higher than Roy. Neither will make it into the top 4 anyway so doesn't matter just yet I guess.

 

[seventieslord]

How do you suggest we counter the positional bias?

One way would be to compartmentalize Hart voting by era and compare the votes a defenseman received with what the norm tended to be. For example, if you found that 75% of all Hart votes cast in the direction of a defenseman went to Ray Bourque between 1987 and 1994, that would be impressive. With Orr it's probably nearly 100%. Shore, despite winning four Harts, shared votes with a lot of defensemen, as that was the trend of the era. I'm only speculating; there are probably a few ways to do it.

A small side problem the more I think about it is Esposito beating Orr in voting frequently. From those more knowledgeable about the 70s was that justified?

I would say no, it wasn't. If you are looking for evidence of positional bias that would be a great place to start.

Would it be fair to say that in the 1973 and 1974 seasons, the voters decided that Esposito was "better offensively" than Orr? I would assume so, since they sure didn't think he was better defensively. All it took was for Esposito to outscore Orr by 8% on a per-game basis over these two seasons to finish ahead of him in Hart voting. Knowing what we know about what made these players valuable and their styles, and taking raw offensive stats into account, that seems highly suspect.

Taking an even closer look, check out their GF:GA ratios those seasons:

1973:

Esposito: 1.14 on, 1.49 off
Orr: 1.89 on, 1.09 off


1974:

Esposito: 1.57 on, 1.61 off
Orr: 1.96 on, 1.26 off

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these numbers prove Esposito made the team worse while he was on the ice. The problem was that Orr was on the ice half the time at even strength, and their shifts didn't coincide. So Esposito's ratio would have been very high with Orr on the ice, and much lower without, while Orr just carried on without Espo, always posting a 65% better ratio than his team could manage without him. It's hard to tell from this whether it mattered to Orr whether Esposito was on the ice, but it definitely mattered to Esposito whether Orr was.

I'm not going to try to overturn 1969 though. I'm not saying Orr was so superhuman and Esposito so dependent on him that a 20-year Orr has to be better and/or more valuable than Esposito at 26. It's quite possible that was not the case. I do think they were on the ice together much more, though, as this was the only time their on and off ratios were even close:

Esposito: 2.01 on, 1.11 off
Orr: 2.22 on, 1.06 off

There's a slight bit of a signal in there, that says Orr was good no matter what and Espo suffered a little without him, but it's based on what appears to be a rather small sample of time spent apart. Orr scored "only" 64 points and still came 3rd in Hart voting. I think voters clearly watched him play and he passed the eye test to finish that high. But I don't think it's painfully obvious that he was the MVP, not like 1973 and 1974.

 

[Canadiens1958]

How do you suggest we counter the positional bias?

Again I didn't make any claims that weren't factual about that data.

It is not a positional bias.Just the offence only crowd and their view.

If defence had equal or dominant value for all positions then positional bias does not exist.

 

[DannyGallivan]

so this raises an interesting question for me: what was more inconceivable before it happened? orr or gretzky?

case for orr—

1969

breaks pierre pilote's single-season points record for a defenseman by 5. not groundbreaking until you consider that in the process he also helped esposito to a 126 point season. the previous record was 97. yes, the game was changing and scoring was increasing (hull, the previous co-record holder with 97, put up 107 that season; howe set a career high with 103), but the sheer volume of espo's 126, on top of his 19 point lead over hull and 23 point lead over howe, was astronomical.

1970

he follows that up by winning the art ross as a defenseman. that achievement will always speak for itself. he put up 120 points, which at the time was the second highest total ever. 21 point lead over the next highest scorer (espo), 34 point lead over #3 (mikita).

he beat the single-season assist record by 10 (espo), and was 20 over the next highest non-teammate (mikita).

so let me repeat: a defenseman. led the league in scoring. by 21 points. and had a 34 point lead over the next highest non-teammate. broke the single-season assist record. by 10. and was 20 higher than the next highest non-teammate.

1971

his team invented the 60 goal plateau, 70 goal plateau, 90 assist plateau, 100 assist plateau, 130 point plateau, 140 point plateau, and 150 point plateau.

phil esposito: 76 goals, beat the previous record by 18, nobody but himself could come within 15 goals of this number until bossy in 1979

bobby orr: 102 assists, beat the previous record (his own) by 15, in the next ten years nobody but himself could come within 12 of that number, until gretzky came along

orr: 139 points, a record that still stands

esposito: 152 points, shattered his own already unfathomable record of 126 points

no team had ever had two 50 goal scorers before (espo and bucyk); no team had ever had two 100 point scorers before and boston had four (espo, orr, bucyk, and hodge).

1st, 2nd, 4th, and 8th place goal scorers
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th place in assists
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 8th, and 9th place in points


case for gretzky—

1980

co-leads the league in points as a teenage rookie, but leads the league with a slightly higher points/game ratio than dionne. one of the highest scoring individual seasons of all time, better than any lafleur season for example, good for #4 all-time behind only espo and orr.

8th highest assist total ever, behind only trottier and two guys named bobby.

important to remember that he was 18 years old through the first half of the season.

1981

breaks orr's assist record by 7, breaks espo's points record by 12. wins the art ross by 29 points. invents the 160 point plateau.

he turns 20 mid-way through the season.

but where are the goals, wayne?

1982

breaks espo's single-season goals record by 16, breaks his own assist record by 11, his own points record by 48. leads the league in goals by 28, assists by 27, points by 65. invents the 200 point plateau (and 170, 180, and 190 point plateaux, plus of course the 80 and 90 goal and 110 and 120 assist plateaux).

Head-spinning data. Obviously I'm in the Orr camp, and his 1970 season was the most mind-boggling to me.

There are two hockey achievements that impress me more than any other, one by Orr and the other by Gretzky.
Orr - a d-man winning the Art Ross.
Gretzky - 50 goals in 39 games. I only recently picked my jaw off the floor from that one.

 

[ResilientBeast]

One way would be to compartmentalize Hart voting by era and compare the votes a defenseman received with what the norm tended to be. For example, if you found that 75% of all Hart votes cast in the direction of a defenseman went to Ray Bourque between 1987 and 1994, that would be impressive. With Orr it's probably nearly 100%. Shore, despite winning four Harts, shared votes with a lot of defensemen, as that was the trend of the era. I'm only speculating; there are probably a few ways to do it.



I would say no, it wasn't. If you are looking for evidence of positional bias that would be a great place to start.

Would it be fair to say that in the 1973 and 1974 seasons, the voters decided that Esposito was "better offensively" than Orr? I would assume so, since they sure didn't think he was better defensively. All it took was for Esposito to outscore Orr by 8% on a per-game basis over these two seasons to finish ahead of him in Hart voting. Knowing what we know about what made these players valuable and their styles, and taking raw offensive stats into account, that seems highly suspect.

Taking an even closer look, check out their GF:GA ratios those seasons:

1973:

Esposito: 1.14 on, 1.49 off
Orr: 1.89 on, 1.09 off


1974:

Esposito: 1.57 on, 1.61 off
Orr: 1.96 on, 1.26 off

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these numbers prove Esposito made the team worse while he was on the ice. The problem was that Orr was on the ice half the time at even strength, and their shifts didn't coincide. So Esposito's ratio would have been very high with Orr on the ice, and much lower without, while Orr just carried on without Espo, always posting a 65% better ration than his team could manage without him. It's hard to tell from this whether it mattered to Orr whether Esposito was on the ice, but it definitely mattered to Esposito whether Orr was.

I'm not going to try to overturn 1969 though. I'm not saying Orr was so superhuman and Esposito so dependent on him that a 20-year Orr has to be better and/or more valuable than Esposito. It's quite possible that was not the case. I do think they were on the ice together much more, though, as this was the only time their on and off ratios were even close:

Esposito: 2.01 on, 1.11 off
Orr: 2.22 on, 1.06 off

There's a slight bit of a signal in there, that says Orr was good no matter what and Espo suffered a little without him, but it's based on what appears to be a rather small sample of time spent apart. Orr scored "only" 64 points and still came 3rd in Hart voting. I think voters clearly watched him play and he passed the eye test to finish that high. But I don't think it's painfully obvious that he was the MVP, not like 1973 and 1974.

Interesting idea about the voter percentages, my next question then would be from the list of defencemen Orr was beating for the Norris were any of them truly deserving of more Hart attention? Outside of Park the transitional group in the late 60s-early 70s is not a particularly strong group. Then the Montreal trio and Potvin arrive in the late/mid 70s and then we move into another strong age of defenders.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Bourque's insane longevity is why he's in the top 10, and rightfully so IMO. That and the fact he was the best or one of the top 3 defenders in hockey during the golden age of defensemen, which as we know wasn't kind to defenses as a whole.

He was a 1st team AS as a ROOKIE teenager in 1980. He was a 1st team AS in his final season. At age 40!

19 time postseason AS. Only Gordie has more all time.
5 time Norris winner with TEN, count em TEN other finalst nods.

You simply don't see that kind of elite consistancy anywhere in hockey history, beyond Howe. Not for a 2 decades long stretch.

Obviously not much team successes but it's not like Ray was a poor postseason player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ah I made a typo I meant the Kings instead of the second Oilers

If you actually read what I wrote you would've picked up that I made a typo from the context....

In other words if you could actually write. Get it, never your fault.

 

[seventieslord]

Good post, but at the risk of being nit-picky I'd probably add that it is very unfortunate that How is "most famous" for his longevity. This unfortunately overshadows just how brilliant a hockey player he was to the more casual hockey fan. I have a good friend who considers himself a rabid hockey fan dismiss Howe as a top four because he thought that his top achievement was his longevity. I had to point out the Art Ross Trophies, Harts, top 10 finishes, 20 goal finishes, etc. If Howe retired in the mid-60's his legacy wouldn't take that great of a hit.

Yep, I've been dealing with this kind of mindset for over a decade with noobs on the internet and people I know in real life who only have a casual understanding of the players from before their time. "Howe just played forever" - we have to obliterate that mentality because it's just not true.

What could this mean? Harvey had a much easier road to get top 5 Norris placings.

But when it comes to Harvey, his "top 5 Norris placings" are almost irrelevant, aren't they? We're talking about the seven that he won, for the most part. And the thing is, he won a few of them by laughable margins in voting. I agree on the quality of his competition to an extent, but that's only half the equation. The other is the degree of dominance, and his was exceptionally high, higher than anyone else but Orr.

Wouldn't such an analysis be positionally biased as well as highly contextual based on coaching and usage rates of the other 4 skaters on the ice? As well based on league GPG and scoring rates?

Additionally you've taken a 7 year snapshot of both players. Which is 7/9 of Orr's actually relevant seasons and almost less than half of Gretzky's.

1969 GPG - 2.98
1975 GPG - 3.43

vs

1982 GPG - 4.01
1988 GPG - 3.71

Gretzky's prime/peak whatever you want to call it coincided with an explosion in offence that lead to some of the highest seasons in terms of GPG which would likely influence those numbers.

None of the conclusions TCG came to were actually influenced by era. Look at the ratios that those raw numbers form. It doesn't matter if you double those figures or cut them in half, they still relate to eachother in the same way, and they still show the same expected win percentages.

Also, you say that he took a seven-year snapshot of Gretzky as a criticism, but it's actually to Gretzky's great benefit that he did so. Outside of Edmonton, Gretzky was not a very good goal differential player. Not in raw numbers, and not relative to his team. You are saying that they would help his case; I'm saying they don't, but the main point is they are secondary, by a wide margin, to what he did in his Edmonton prime.